Talk:Contrat nouvelle embauche

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

France Portal
Contrat nouvelle embauche is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.
This article is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Organized Labour Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.


Contents

[edit] POV reshape of the article

Mr Lapaz, you so violently shut me off on "CPE" talk page that I just chose not to bother and stop writing, but I think here you are going a bit too far:
- you totally deleted factual information about the CNE that I wrote : example, the estimated 280,000 contracts signed.
- you also just deleted the source I gave for that figure.
- instead of that, you pick a source that does not give a calculated figure but non-statistically calculated assumptions. At least I clearly stated that figure were contested!
- by the way your source links to a page that does not exist anymore.
- you totally deleted some points on the proponent side: the fact courts usually side the employee. My apologies if I did not quote any source for that point that everybody in France has been talking about in the last two months, but here I have one for you: [1]. Are you gonna delete it?
- it's getting worst: you totally changed the first paragraph and made it a looong paragraph basically saying the CNE is illegal!
- even better: in the source you are quoting to prove it, it is CLEARLY stated that your point is mitigated by other facts: the local court's decision is in complete opposition to the Conseil d'Etat's decision, which is the supreme court for administrative justice in France! But you did not write that!!!!!
- finally, your own "will probably" to say the CNE will probably end is a personal opinion and you don't even try to prove it.
To make it short, you deleted my points, violating the basic idea of objectivity by just removing my datas AND sources, and then made the article to your views, with your figures. I did not care much to read entirely rules on wikipedia, but I think deleting facts, figures AND sources that don't fit your views and replace them with yours is POV, I believe this is not at all in line with wikipedia's spirit! I can't let you do that, I at least will keep your figures, facts and sources to oppose them to the one you deleted! You are welcome to bring more sources, points on articles, and discuss them, don't just delete what you don't like... Sarreau 00:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

And you even called it a minor edit!! Sorry, I'll revert to my previous versions, then takeover your sources and figures. Please change if you feel I'm wrong... but keep the figures, facts and sources that oppose your view...Sarreau 01:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


I am doing my job: after (fast) checkings on internet, the low figures of 10,000 and 20,000 came after less than a month of application of the new contract, in september 2005!!! How to compare it to figures of 2006, several months after the contract has been existing!Sarreau 01:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[2] in French says 410,000 CNE contracts have been signed between sept 2005 and april 2006. I could not find it in english so I won't use it! It also explains that Lapaz remarks on Insee figures refer to net creation of jobs, meaning assumption of jobs that would not have existed without this new contract, as opposed to jobs signed under this new contract instead of being signed with older forms of contracts.Sarreau 01:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I checked wikipedia policy, sources in French is acceptable if it is not available in English. I use your sources for your point, so there is no reason I don't use the above mentionned 410,000 figureSarreau 01:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

ok I kept your remarks and main source except Canard Enchaine as the page is gone! Please bring in your remarks and changes... But don't delete again the existing sources and info, it is against wikipedia rules!Sarreau 02:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Sarreau, first of all if I did mark it as a minor edit, sorry. Second, please don't title sections with usernames, we're not discussing about me but about the CNE. Third, I should actually have explained the deletion of the Guardian source, that's true. I didn't, because the numbers are so outrageous and because they're from an English source. As you saw in WP:CS, foreign languages sources are totally acceptable, and since we're discussing a French subject, French sources are lot more legitimate. The Guardian article just put out a number out of thin air, without explaining anything, which is not the case of the Canard Enchaîné. Concerning the dead link, I am aware that linking to Reuters is not the best way to proceed. I did so because the judgement had been on French Wikipedia, and I preferred adding a source than none at all. And the fact that the link has died does not means that the news cable has disappeared (or else Wikipedia will eternally revise history. Finally, I'll add that these modifications I made were because your writing was definitely really POV and didn't respect at all Wikipedia guidelines to writing NPOV. I hope we can contribute together better in the future. Cheers! Lapaz 17:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Sarreau, I'll point out that I did not mark it out as minor (not the first edit!). Second, you did worse, because you did a plain revert, while I had add obviously positive things, if only the link to the French & German versions. I hope the current version will be better. Lapaz 18:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Mr Lapaz, thanks for coming here in discussion. Ok for my title, however, everything I wrote about your changes is factual, including the "m" for minor edit, so there is nothing much to say about it! Also, I am shocked you are yourself accusing me of POV writing here since your version clearly shows your thinkings... But nevermind, let's make this article. I think you should find additional sources for the Canard Enchaine claims. I strongly disagree with the "drop in the ocean" at that point: 10,000 to 20,000 jobs created for every trimestrial period just because the CNE exists is definitely not a drop in the ocean, particularly in France, and is definitely a positive result! Also, saying 600 jobs have been created as of August 19th, i.e. after only two weeks, and in the middle of what is known as a "dead" month in France is much less relevant than 410,000 jobs after 7 months, even decreased by 20%! Moreover, this 410,000 jobs signed figures is perfectly usable as it is given by an official source. No statistical source will ever give an more exact figure, and this source being directly linked to the job registration office, nothing is more relevant than this source on that matter! If you don't accept this source, you can't accept any! I feel even your own 20% decrease is more like a confirmation of that figure. For those reason, I suggest to remove the 600 jobs mention that is non explaining, keep your 20% comment though I disagree with it.Sarreau 00:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Mr Lapaz I did not notice your first changes! YOU AGAIN DELETED SOME OF MY SOURCES, and wrote the intro and other paragraphs to fit your POV!!Sarreau 00:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Please take a deep breath. There is no censorship here, as you are aware that you can modify my edits and are in fact encouraged to be bold. Concerning the deleted source, excuse-me but I deleted the sentence (and therefore the source accompanying it) "In case the fired employee takes the employer to the court, the court usually gives reason to the employee" because it is a POV sentence and this source doesn't prove that it is right. In the same line of thought, I deleted the sentence "Unions and opponents reject those positive figures." because it is simply false. Now, you can argue about the "drop in the ocean" - this would need comparison to global figures, but I put it in brackets, as you notice. For the rest, I advise you to have a look at fr:Contrat nouvelle embauche which I'm just translating, nothing else:

Selon les chiffres du gouvernement cités par Le Canard Enchaîné en avril 2006, "le CNE pèserait 400 000 contrats". Mais ces chiffres ont été mis en cause par l'Insee et l'ANPE, cette dernière ne décomptant pas plus de 600 CNE au 19 août 2005, alors que l'Acoss (Agence centrale des Organismes de Sécurité Sociale), la "banque" de la Sécurité Sociale, recensait 30 000 CNE du 4 août au 1er septembre 2005. [10]. L'Acoss a ensuite estimé à 355 000, puis à 400 000, le nombre d'embauches en CNE, ceci en se fondant sur la «déclaration unique d'embauche», obligatoire pour toutes les entreprises et tous les employeurs. Or l'Acoss a extrapolé, à partir des déclarations reçues par internet, le nombre total de contrats passés. 40% des entreprises ont en effet répondu à la déclaration unique d'embauche via Internet. De plus, il se pourrait que beaucoup d'employeurs internautes aient coché la case « contrat nouvelle embauche» pour chacune de leurs nouvelles embauches, quel que soit le contrat utilisé. L'Acoss fut alertée et chargée d'éplucher les formulaires. D'après l'Acoss, il en ressort que 82% des déclarations étaient correctes et que les erreurs dans un sens étaient compensées par les erreurs dans l'autre sens. Mais d'après l'Insee, "le CNE permettra, au mieux, de créer entre 10 000 et 20 000 jobs nouveaux par trimestre." [11] Selon une étude s'appuyant sur un modèle simulé et publiée par Pierre Cahuc et Stéphane Carcillo, membres du Conseil d'analyse économique de l'université de Paris I-Sorbonne, le CNE pourrait entraîner la création 70.000 emplois supplémentaires à l'horizon de 10 ans (soit une baisse de 0.5 points du taux de chômage) tout en augmentant l'instabilité du travail et "une légère détérioration des conditions de vie des demandeurs d'emplois, équivalente à une diminution de 0,47% du revenu."

. Lapaz 16:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: I don't know if you've been in France lately, but I assure you that this is a complex debate that most certainly can't be resumed by a few English or American articles. French sources are heavily advised. Lapaz 16:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Please also refer to the introduction of the fr:Contrat nouvelle embauche:

En France, le contrat nouvelle embauche (CNE) est un type de contrat de travail sans limitation de durée pour les entreprises de vingt salariés ou moins. Durant la période dite de consolidation de l'emploi de deux années, la rupture sans justifier le motif est possible, moyennant un préavis court et une indemnité de 8 % sur le total de la rémunération. Le CNE a été déclaré "contraire au droit international du travail" le vendredi 28 avril 2006 par le Conseil des prud'hommes de Longjumeau (Essonne). Le CNE est donc contraire à la convention 158 de l'Organisation internationale du travail ratifiée par la France et est donc "non valable" et "privé d'effet juridique". Cette convention prévoit qu'un salarié ne peut être licencié "sans qu'il existe un motif valable de licenciement" et "avant qu'on lui ait offert la possibilité de se défendre". Le Conseil des prud'hommes de Longjumeau avait été saisi du cas de Linda de Wee embauchée en CDD le 1er juillet 2005 en tant que secrétaire. À la fin de son CDD de six mois, elle a été embauchée par le même employeur en CNE le 1er janvier 2006. Son CNE a été requalifié en CDI. Cette décision juridique fera probablement jurisprudence.

It is not at all POV referring in the intro to the April 28, 2006 judgment as - I don't know if you're aware of that, I'm sure the International Herald Tribune didn't speak of it - if repeated, it will make jurisprudence that will prohibit the CNE. You may think this is a shame, but this is the way things work here in France. Lapaz 16:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This statement (jurisprudence will prohibit the CNE) is based on nothing, and as far as I know, it is not true at all (or please prove it). That's why it is POV...
In any case, check again your source: the court did not rule against the CNE in general, and anyway is absolutely not entitled to do so, but against this one and only court case, as will Prud'hommes courts always rule on one specific employer/employee case.Sarreau 00:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


I am quite surprised by everything you say here. I don't think it justifies anything nor makes your point: French wikipedia will be read by French readers, I guess a huge majority of them will be French. English wikipedia is read by everybody, and mostly by people who know nothing of French environment. You would have to accept that non only English speaking newssources are acceptable, but also they bring additionnal depth that French newssources won't have, as they will explain the French situation and compare it to local situation. French news won't as they are meant for French... Also, the French wikipedia does not look balanced to me, but I prefer to concentrate on the English one. Also, you just copy and paste from sources that suit you, and just delete what doesn't. I feel you are so much chosing facts and info, copying from here and there, and overloading the article instead of making things clear that what you write is absolutely not explanatory. Sarreau 21:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Both of you need to stop this arguement now. As Sarreau said Lapaz, you copy and paste from sources that suit you. You ought to start thinking about other users who might come in here and start editing. I have not looked at the edit history yet however I am quite unhappy with the article therefore it needs cleanup. Any article that is not balanced needs to be cleaned up, nominated for deletion, or improved. I will be watching the article over the next few days and I will nominate it for deletion if it is not upgraded. In the meantime do not remove the cleanup link. ForestH2
This page will be getting protection if it doesn't get anyworse. ForestH2


let's start all over again. I propose:

  • mentions of the Longjumeau trial and of the CNE being "illegal" or "illegitimate" should be removed from the opening paragraph, and so far be posted only in a specific subsection, AND be shortened. Reason: 400,000 contracts have been signed, and as of today this contract is valid, legal and widely used. Higlighting this trial in the opening paragraph and so much in the article gives too much weight to that issue, and just voices out the point of view of the opponents to the CNE. Note this is one case out of 400,000 signed contracts, and while it should be mentionned in the article, this issue does currently absolutely not threaten the existence of the CNE... but that's how it sounds in the current version.
  • add back the iht.com link, and reference to "the court usually gives reason to the employee". Reason: it explains, linking to a source in English, a major difference between employment law in France and outside of France. Because of that, it is essential to this article, as it is explanatory to readers not familiar with French specific environment.
  • too much of the opponent's views is expressed in the article in almost every section, and almost nothing of the proponent's views. In its current version, it sounds as if the CNE was illegal, useless, a danger to employees, though the contract has been widely used, is absolutely legal in the Republic and has allowed new jobs. The same way many paragraph and lines have been added about the court issue, many paragraphs and lines could be added about the rigidity of employment laws in France, the need of flexibility for small firms, the testimonies of small companies bosses who now have more opportunities to create jobs, etc. Therefore balance is needed particularly here. Unless deleting or reorganizing many parts and paragraphs, I don't know how to do it.
  • The explanation that it would create 10/20,000 new contracts per trimestrial period is a factual and not contested positive result: without this new contract, those jobs would not exist. It is currently drowned in the article and in the negative point of view.

I also think the sections should be reorganized, I'll work on it later. Pls comment in the meantime.Sarreau 23:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You can do the work....I'll do some of it however I will be interfeering. I hope that Lapaz thinks about that.....AND don't forget this page could be protected and I'm sure you don't want that. In the mean time you can post to my talk page or post to here if you want to ask me a question. ForestH2


ok I re-edited based on my proposals above. I'd like to highlight a point I did not mention before: the fact that French employers have to CHOOSE between existing contract types set by the labour law. I think this is quite unique as in most countries, the labour law sets some frames and the employer is free to draw any kind of contract negotiated with the employee. This is essential here as non-French readers might totally miss that point, though basic knowledge for anybody working in France.80.170.5.41 02:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC) (Sarreau 02:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Third Opinion

This Talk page was listed on Wikipedia:Third opinion, but it appears the debate has been resolved (and a third user has already become involved). Is there some outstanding debate that still needs resolution here, some specific passage which isn't being agreed upon? Fagstein 05:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Actully, Sarreau posted help me on his talk page and I replied to his message and then I noticed that he's thinking (or I think) that Lapaz is just copying and pasting sources, and only using his info. We do need a third opion as I am not very skilled in the subject although I do know a little bit and tried my best to do what's needed. As for now, I think that if the page is not cleaned up, (e.g red links are not erased, page is improved), I think we have to leave the clean up bar there now and worse debates will go to page protection. And I was just logged out for some reason so the reason why the edit history says 72.129.123.139 is I was logged out. (not intending to) ForestH2

[edit] need to create more articles explaining French job environment?

Explaining here the French employment environment, and the way French understand jobs and job security is extremely tough, as this understanding is completely different everywhere else. Asking if your job is a CDI, a CDD or interim is normal only in France - in many other countries, there's no difference anyway! I just don't know if all this needs to be explained, or if it's going too far? Also, there won't be many sources about this. any comment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarreau (talk • contribs)

I remind you that you created the Contrat nouvelle embauche (entry!). Not that I disagree with that, but if you want to enter such evident debates, it surely is important to explain things well. Or else, we're bound to have endless NPOV disagreements. So, yes, "all this needs to be explained". Lapaz 21:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I have to say your attitude and latest action does not encourage me to write anything!Sarreau 23:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Alert! This page will be protected if you keep the arugment going. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForestH2 (talk • contribs)

[edit] complete reversals when obvious ameliorations have been brought is no way to proceed

Wikipedia:Information suppression is not well seen. I advise you to report to Wikipedia:Etiquette: "Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle. When you amend and edit, it is remarkable how you might see something useful in what was said. Most people have something useful to say. That includes you. Deletion upsets people and makes them feel they have wasted their time: consider moving their text to a sub-directory of their user pages instead (e.g. saying not quite the right place for it but so they can still use it): much less provocative." Finally, Wikipedia:NPOV dispute may also be of some help. In other words, you are invited to edit correspondingly to your views, but instead of reversing the article since they are obvious ameliorations (I think that just the table of contents could indicate that to you; it is not very "encyclopedic" to title a section "What is the CNE all about?" when you can title it "Clauses", and I don't think that's pushing a POV!) Fare well, Lapaz 21:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sort of agree with Lapaz....Not really though. ForestH2


It looks to me Lapaz did not take into account recent discussions and proposals! I included his ideas everytime he brought some, and since I consider his editing of the article was unbalanced and biased, I proposed changes that he kept rejecting, even removing links I considered important and saying (quote: "this source does not prove it is right!"). As he obviously wants to ignore the idea of "discussion" and just wants to have things his own way, and particularly shape the article to his own ideas, it looks normal to me to place the dispute banner on the article. At least it gives some doubt to readers, and I won't play edit war though I believe this current version of his is totally unacceptable!Sarreau 23:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way Lapaz, the idea of "ameliorations" that you brought is extremely personal! As you like to give advices, remember you are supposed to give some consideration to other users views. The Longjumeau issue came after I started the article, and I have no problem to consider it has to be in the article (again, I included it in my latest version), but it does not deserve the weight you give to it. I spent hours trying to edit (not copy and paste like you did) and balance everything and you just reverted! I won't say anything else, unless you dare to remove the npov banner!Sarreau 23:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am going to have this page protected in less the arugment stops. Lapaz, needs to think a little bit about other edits and users. It might be worthy of nominating this page for deletion. ForestH2

[edit] Cleanup

If we want to make the article better we need to clean it up a lot....Let's remove the red links. Thanks, Sarreau for putting the disputed article sign up there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForestH2 (talk • contribs)


Checked wikipedia procedure. Will proceed to Requests_for_comment if nothing changed and Lapaz keeps rejecting the problems and revert without trying to improve.Sarreau 00:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doesn't clean-up process on a disputed article legitimate the current version?

I totally disagree with the current version. I did my "job" when trying a total reedit that includes the other user's points and opinion, but he reverted to its former without any improvements, ignoring my own points. As I did not react to avoid a revert war, cleaning up has started. I am glad user:UkPaolo and more users come in, but then why start cleaning up on a contested version? I feel it is like accepting the current version and making it permanent! I now feel it is worth going into revert war!! I am trying to make things better here but nothing changes, I am only talking to myself?Sarreau 10:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

He...Is UKPaolo or Lapaz? UKPaolo most likely thinks this needs some work. By the way....It still needs cleanup. I think that if he makes any changes and there not worthwhile on the article, revert them. Don't post to his talk page. I left a note a week ago, he's still editing and hasn't responded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForestH2 (talk • contribs)
You're right, I did just think this needed some work. I wasn't intending to disregard your edits, just tidying up the reference formatting etc. In my opinion (and it is my opinion - feel free to disagree, and let me know if you do) the best way forward is for all editors to accept the current version (in so far as to not blanket revert the article to a previous state) and to adjust it to incorporate (or remove) anything you see fit. I can't see anything all that wrong with the bulk of this article, although I would accept that I don't have a great deal of knowledge on this subject. Sarreau - maybe you could briefly explain here what you see is wrong with the article currently, and what you would like to see added? I think it's better if we add or subtract from the article in it's current form (that's what I was doing) rather than keep reverting between two versions. I'm glad you took the upper hand and "didn't react to avoid a revert war". PS — Forest, I'm not sure about whom you're referring; me or Lapaz, but if it's me I thought I'd responded to all messages you'd left on my talk page — please post me a reminder if you've still got further questions, maybe I missed something! └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 16:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


first of all why am I the one making so many effort, when Lapaz just has to revert and remains silent? Lapaz, please talk to us! Where is the discussion? That's why I mean when I say I feel like reverting to my version!! Sarreau 18:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


now again here is my effort to discuss instead of reverting... Here's why current version wrong:

  • current version (Lapaz version) highlights mostly the views of the opponents of this CNE; particularly he is much too much emphasazing the labour law court/Longjumeau/prud'hommes affair, which is a single case as opposed to ... 400,000 CNE! To prove it, you might notice his following source source (most other news in French just took over the same text from Reuters) keeps mentionning "CGT", and actually the info itself comes from CGT, which is one of the union that strongly OPPOSES this contract!
  • as soon as the opening paragraph, this court issue is mentionned, highlighting the idea of the contract being "illegitimate" (this word comes 3 times in the article). But again, the contract is perfectly legal, in use, and absolutely not illegitimate. A bit as if you say in the GW Bush article that he is a murderer and a lier in the opening paragraph, because his opponents said so!
  • the issue comes back a totally outbalanced way in the "oppostion" section. What looks like a big detailed explanation actually just weights on the side of the opponents views!
  • on the other hand, most of the points of the proponents are almost made invisible by the overflow of negative views: the fact that at the end of the day, it already DID create jobs, the fact that 400,000 new contracts were signed in just 7 months.
  • Also, and mostly, this contract was launched to create jobs and help companies: this dimension has disappeared from the article... the same way as opponents do not mention it!
  • I spent time explaining, which Lapaz did not: explain about the situation, explain a context, more than only repeating sources. It is not something easily understandable for non-French. He deleted one of my source in English saying my source is irrelevant (the source was International Herald Tribune, by the way, which is a NY Times newspaper...). I consider this article needs a lot of info that won't be included in the French wikipedia: do you know what is a CDI? Do you know what is the difference between a probation period in France and elsewhere?

I hope I did not spend this time again for nothing! Lapaz, here's a discussion, please discuss! Sarreau 18:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


Also, Lapaz claimed that the court issue is essential because a second identical rule would outlaw the CNE... this is absolutely wrong!Sarreau 18:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Court case question

Re: Un contrat en CNE jugé contraire au droit international:
My french isn't the best, but from a google translation it isn't clear what the court was deciding. Did it decide against the CNE in one single case of a secretary, and opponents are hoping that this will set a precedent if followed through to higher courts? (If so, it would seem that this one court case is receiving undue weight, especially in the opening paragraph). MartinRe

you are right to raise the question: it only ruled against one EMPLOYER, considering it took advantage of the CNE. There is little doubt it will happen again. The court (according to the source) also indicated they felt that some part of the CNE is unreasonable. This, unlike what Lapaz is trying to say, does not threaten the existence of the CNE in general, and definitely does not rule against the CNE. This is only a one court case as you say... one out of 400,000 contracts signed so far. That's why it is receiving undue weight, though important to mention in the article... once and briefly. You have to understand also it very probably will happen again, as there is everyday courts ruling against other job contracts employers! Sarreau 19:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening paragraph

As it currently stands, the first paragraph is ambigious, due to discussing two different "contracts". I'd try to fix it myself, but without french knowledge to read the sources, I would not be sure which one is being referred to. Would someone mind clearing up the confusion by either removing the second contract or ammend the word "contract" to something more explicit to show which it's talking about. Cheers. MartinRe 18:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

this is why I would like to know why Lapaz has removed the International Herald Tribune article that I indicated... which mentions all the above. Picking French siding whatever view he wants is easy. Should I do the same with my own picking? Sarreau 19:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

::I removed it because you did complete reversals! I wrote this above! If you want to reintroduce it, don't worry, you are free !!! But please don't do complete reversals as you have done each time you have edited my edits. Thank you! Lapaz 02:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

and I did a complete reversal because you deleted and rejected my points... now you are open to discussion, and finally accept to include "facts about opinion" that you don't like, I have no reason to do reversal!Sarreau 10:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Additionnally, mentionning the First Employment Contract is also slightly POV: because this contract was eventually cancelled, and not used. One of the main change brought by both contract is a 2 years fire at will clause. The CNE (older, very much used by employers, perfectly legal) can be used only in small firms, for any employee job contract. The FPE (not used, recent, cancelled) is for every company, but only for young employees.Sarreau 19:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Mentionning the First Employment Contract is POV????§§§§ No, my dear Sarreau, it's a fact!!! Lapaz 02:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
discussions are getting mixed up. Lapaz, please be serious and constructive, you know what I mean: mentionning the FPE in the opening paragraph. I created this article and mentionned the First Empl. Contr. myself!! Mentionning it in the opening paragraph is confusing, and gives to it a negative touch (First Empl. Contr. is rejected, not the CNE). And it is not natural AS the First Empl. Contr. has been created AFTER the CNE, not the opposite. Mentionning it later, particularly in the "opposition" section, is normal.Sarreau 10:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
How many different types of contract are there? (Depending on how many there are, comparasions (e.g. to FEC) may be in order. Regards, MartinRe 19:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I started to explain this kind of things earlier, until the last revert. This is getting interesting, I guess. Another time, someone would have to explain me about FEC. I already explained sometime before that a key issue in the understanding of the CNE is that French employers, unlike in other countries, have to choose under which kind of contrat they are recruiting someone, knowing there are a limited number of contracts set by Labour Law: employers don't just write their own contracts like in many countries. THis is why this new contract is so important in recent social history: the change it brings might push the employers to choose it instead of the others. For the best, according to supporters, for the worst, according to opponents. The two year so-called "fire at will" clause will bring the job to the same level of job security as an American job contract, at least for the first two years, as it brings more flexibility for the French employers, therefore company, therefore economy, this is definitely a political move towards more "free market" politics, reason for the controversy. Anyway I already started mentioning it and I feel it would be the right way... but I think before anything else this article should be finished first. Did it help?21:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime my complains about the article remain.Sarreau 21:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I also explained earlier: job contract types existing before CNE were often considered to rigid. It is the main reason why the CNE was created, this is the part that Lapaz kept deleting, including this source here. Lapaz kept deleting this source because (quoting him) "it is a POV sentence and this source doesn't prove that it is right.". I believe, however, that International Herald Tribune articles express something that should be considered...Sarreau 21:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, and the IHT would seem to be a reliable source to me. WP:NPOV means that us editors cannot insert our opinions into articles, but it is perfectly acceptable to insert "facts about opinions" (e.g. regarded as "too rigid" (cite IHT)) Also WP:V shows that editing is about verifibility not truth - we, as editors don't care whether or not it is too rigid is a fact or not.
I did a quick search for contracts in France to find some background, and found one link that gave some overview[3] (link is not a very reliable source, though, as it's op-ed piece, but gives some useful background)
I'll try and spend some time on this article over the next while to see what I can help with, but it may be limited due to time and/or language barriers.
One polite request to all editors, though. Please don't flip between versions by simply reverting, it makes it very difficult to work on improving the article, as generally neither version is perfect, and it's ususally somewhere in the middle. Concentrating on adding, not subtracting, and always cite your sources, that makes it a lot easier for other editors to work out that is editor POV and what is factual reporting. Also, if it's possibly contravertsial, it might be better to discuss on the talk page and work out the details that continuingly modifying the article. Regards, MartinRe 21:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


this is encouraging, thanks MartinRe, glad to see more people coming in. I am also impressed by the link you found, I never saw anything so explanatory in English. It actually explains more than what we did so far, it is really excellent! One more mention of "rigid labour code", by the way, I guess the idea deserves its place back in the article! The comment from a French student that follows the main text on the source page also shows how strong was the emotionnal response and opposition to all of this (the CPE, that is). As the writer is a lecturer in University, can it be used as a source?Sarreau 23:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


NO, I haven't "kept deleting it", i have reversed the complete reverses you have done. I am wondering if you are deliberately saying these false comments, or if you really believe it? You may of course include this source, it's not a big deal, you know? I'm not going to make an issue of it! However, if it is to prove, as you wrote, that "French labor courts usually judge in favor of employees", than you are assuming that French courts are POV? and that the ITH is NPOV? ISn't that "just a bit" ironical? If you want to put this link, if you feel it is justified, do it please, but no to prove POV points. I think you need another source than this article to prove the fact that "French labor courts usually judge in favor of employees", do you think this is really unreasonnable of me? Lapaz 02:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


Thank you MartinRe for stating the obvious. Complete reversals are no way to proceed. I completely agree that ITH is a reliable source, I think, pardon me Sarreau, I may be a bit annoyed, but that you are doing a little bit of paranoia right now. You may of course add it. Simply, please do not add it to prove the sentence that you wrote which was : "labor courts usually judge in favor of employees". This is assuming that labor courts are not impartial, and is a rather serious accusation! I don't think even the ITH can prove that labor courts are impartial. If that was the case, than there are other courts to take the matter up. Lapaz 02:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
(I reversed back your comment to chronological order, Lapaz, I suggest we don't mix up the chronological order of discussions). As MartinRe said, the idea of "rigid labour law" is a "fact about opinion" very common in France. Nice to hear you now agree to include it!Sarreau 09:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
whether it is an accusation or not does not matter here for the article, the fact many believe in it matters. Anyway I will use the same phrasing as IHT.Sarreau 09:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


not exactly same subject but can be interesting also is The Economist " French trade unions, Power without responsibility" of April 27, 2006Sarreau 00:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


Can we now come back to editing the article? Anybody agree with my points above? I suggest:

  • removing mentions to the FPE from the opening paragraph to avoid confusion and as this contract indeed was cancelled, there's enough mentions of it later. Also, I don't think it would be clear to base explanations on the FPE since its a more recent contract, and, again, because it has been cancelled.
  • removing mention of the court case from the opening paragraph. MartinRe, you raised the question earlier, do you now think it received undue weight?
  • in my earlier version before the "reverting", I tried to explain the frame of French employment contracts, I think it should be back in the "clause" explanation.
  • independantly, I think this is where the "rigid labour law" should appear, as a "fact about opinion".
  • the "impact" section should show the "400,000" figures, that clearly shows how much this job contract was used since august 2005, and the INSEE figure that shows that the contract created additional jobs.
  • I still consider the "court arbitrage" section is a useless, falsely detailed, non explanatory 100% POV mess with only negative mentions of the CNE (quoting for you: "abusive rupture", "illegitimate", "abusing firing", "arbitrory boss behavior" and so on), that's still imcludes the absolutely incorrect statement "which will probably make jurisprudence" that I would delete, but I leave it to other users to decide.

If nobody comments or discuss on my proposal, I will start back editing (except the "court arbitrage" section). Hope someone comments, though.Sarreau 00:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please proceed with caution, step by step. Considering that mention to the First Employment Contract in the opening introduction is POV is amazing! How can you claim it's POV? It is a fact, and it help people understand the similarities. You are not going to say on line 37 that "maybe there are some similarities with the CPE", are you?
  • Removing mention of the court case from the opening paragraph is going against the introduction of the fr:Contrat nouvelle embauche, where it was deemed perfectly NPOV. Why? Because French people are stupid? No, because whatever your personal opinions on the matter, it is an important juridical and political event that leads to serious risks to the existence of the CNE. You may not like that, but it certainly is not POV stating juridical decisions, in particular when they may acquire jurisprudence in the next decision!!!
  • You may of course explain the frame of the French employment contracts, this seems totally reasonable.
  • You may of course speka about "rigid labour law", simply expect me to find sources to counter balance any affirmation which I deemed extremist. To tell you the truth, I do not argue in favor of immobilism as you may think.
  • Considering that the "court arbitrage" section is useless is totally POV, Sarreau, I hope you are aware of that. Nobody can justify that stating the existence of such an important court decision is POV. Again, please edit without doing complete reversals, work on the actual text, do little touchs, and DISCUSS ANY IMPORTANT CHANGES HERE. Thanks; Lapaz 03:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


thanks for finally coming to discussion, Lapaz. I wish you did not change my words, though.<>br

  • "court case" mentionned in the opening paragraph: of course I accept mention of the court but not in here, and not an overweighted way. I shall wait for MartinRe and other opinion about that first, or more opinion than just the two of us.
  • FPE mentionned in the opening paragraph: you are right, it is my opinion that it should not be in the opening paragraph! Also waiting for third opinion.
  • I don't see why we should base here from French wikipedia, I am not working on French wikipedia and most third opinion won't speak French anyway. Reason why I write in English wikipedia is to try to bridge the differences in understandings. How about a source like your Reuters source for the "court case" issue? It is mostly wordings from the CGT, as I said, therefore a "fact about opinion", more than just a fact on the CNE!
  • "rigid labour law" is an idea that does exists, not shared by unions, and opponents. It is the reason why the law was created, because people in power share this opinion, so do most employers and MEDEF, the employers union. It is what MartinRe called "fact about opinion". Therefore it should be included to balance your negative views. I did include it in my earlier versions, along with your views...
  • about the court arbitrage I said I won't touch it, expecting your POV accusation. Unlike what you say, I am not rejecting the facts inside, but say they are not always relevant, put a confusing rather than explanatory way, and, above all, use a totally negative phrasing. Hope more people join it and express opinion, based on my above explanations.
  • Bottom line, Lapaz, I don't reject most of your things, and I did include them in my versions. But I reject your balancing the article in a very negative way for the CNE, the same way opponents do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarreau (talk • contribs)

[edit] keep comments in discussion in chronological order...

Lapaz, I don't think it is acceptable to include your comments inbetween past discussions... you have been doing it several times, I just noticed and corrected some. But now I feel I have to make it clear since I noticed your input of "NO, I haven't "kept deleting it"" just comes before the "I would agree" from MartinRe, making it looks like his "I would agree" is for you.

Use the :: clearly so that it shows how the discussion developped chronologically, and who was talking to who! I don't think we need another fight on this, I suggest to respect chronological discussion if not Discussion is not readable!!

I fixed some of your remarks with either "::" or moved the back to a chronological order!

Sarreau 10:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] balance in the article required!

I brought some improvement, mainly to bring balance to the current version.

  • created the "origin" section: I'd like to remind here that the idea is to tackle unemployement. Government being right-wing, it is a right-wing way to do it: by helping companies creating growth. SInce the origin is the government, best source was the government/prime minister website itself.
  • reshaped a bit the "opposition" section, which was giving a totally negative picture, by first giving the official results.
  • in the same section, removed partial opinions in statement (such as "only", "is a drop in the ocean).

Sarreau 14:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

still awaiting opinions about the opening paragraph (pls see section above).Sarreau 14:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


thanks for your corrections, MartinRe. You deleted this source that you dug out yourself from the net, can I ask why? Isn't it a "fact of opinion" source?Sarreau 14:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason I removed it is was twofold. One, the lecturer is talking about CPE, only mentioning CNE in passing. Two, I'm doubtful that it would be a reliable enough source, as it's an op-ed piece, so is a primary source, and for something like this, I'd prefer a secondary source, which would give credence that this one person's opinion has some weight. WP:NOR#Primary_and_secondary_sources outlines the difference between primary and secondary sources. MartinRe 14:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
meaning IHT is secondary enough? I understand, but wouldn't it be usefull though? it explains a lot... anyway, ok, thanks for explaining.Sarreau 14:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, by indicating the government being conservative/centre-right, I wanted to show the controversy on it has a political origin (liberal policy). You deleted it, can I ask why? Sarreau 14:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Because the definition of left/right/center/conservative/liberal can be very vague, (depending a lot on where you're looking at it from :) so it is better to remove. And of course, the usual verifibility/NPOV policy comes into play, we can not call it a liberal policy ourselves, if the only reason is that we think it is. Does that explain my reasoning? Regards, MartinRe 14:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You deleted the "Helping companies achieve growth": it really is mentionned in the page though, check again here, it's a paragraph title!Sarreau 14:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What I deleted was "helping companies achieve wealth". Wealth was not mentioned in the article MartinRe 14:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
oops, sorry, I guess I was reading 2 articles at the same time.Sarreau

[edit] Can't see the wood for the trees

I have a suggestion. This article as it stands is quite complex, and rather than adding/moving bits here and there, would it be simplier to try and agree on the outline first, and then fill in the gaps? That way we can agree on what goes where, and it should hopefully balance itself out. (plus if most of the sections are factual, we can move the POV dispute to single sections where we can work

For example:

  1. Lead paragraph - Brief summary of what the CNE is.
  2. Background - What is a "Job contract"? When was this Job contract passed/voted on/put into law? (just factual dates)
  3. Clauses - what this job contract does and does not allow. (factual, not what it was "intended to do")
  4. Reaction/Effect- Stats on how many CNE were created (offical figures + other figures with a reliabe source) (should be mostly factual)
  5. Critism - general critism (plus mention of previous CPE) (the tough section :)
  6. Court Challanges - details on court challanges on the CNE (should be factual enough)
  7. References
  8. See also

Any comments? MartinRe 15:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

ok, but don't we already have that? Sarreau 19:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that as in the First Employment Contract a "In favor of" section is created to balance the "Critics" section and to clearly separate ideology from facts. I don't agree with Sarreau in that Villepin is the best source to factually state what the contract is about, since he is of course very partial. Wikipedia is not there anymore to push governmental propaganda than it is to denounce governmental lies. Furthermore, I am removing some repetitions of Villepin which are unnecessary (once is enough). Finally, I advise editors, when making modifications to edits, to be careful with sources and moving sentences around, especially concerning statistics. For example, the INSEE and the ACOSS things, as Sarreau can read in the French Wikipedia (but he clearly wants to make a different article with an Anglo-Saxon view on it, which he calls "bridging", although I think English Wikipedia article about France should explain the differences of France and not put judgment on it... anyway...), was indicated by the Canard Enchaîné. Lapaz 22:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I did not put any judgement, Lapaz, and explaining the differences would be something I'd be extremely glad to do. That's precisely why you have to explain contexts of the labour law before... In most countries of the world, even in China, "fire at will" is quasi normal. This is why it is necessary to mention the "difficult to fire" part, and so on... no judgement here, explanations!
otherwise I ok with "in favor" and "critics", however I am not sure we will agree on the "clearly separate btw ideology from facts" partSarreau 00:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
In favour of sounds good, I see from my rough list above there is no place for postive reaction comments.
Villepin is of course a partial source, but for factual aspects of the law, the government web site would be the best. (Obviously for sections reporting opinions, he'd only be one of the sources) However, factual information on this law is very limited, which is a pity. MartinRe 22:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
agree on the source problem. Villepin not partial, however still government. What would be a partial enough source?Sarreau 00:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
It is because factually, there's not much to say apart that it took out the "justification" clause. Following the Conseil d'Etat judgment, it was made clear that this didn't allow employers to fire without any judgment, as the law implied, but that the motive had to be given in case of contentious. The reason many people were opposed to it, as with the Contract First Employment, is not because of a "little increased flexibility" (I personally agree that some specific professions, such as architects, for example, and other liberal professions like that, would benefit from specific work contracts adapted to the services' economy of which they are dependent, and which moves a lot; this is not the case for all jobs). Rather, it is because if you take out the "motive", than it is very difficult to show, in the case there is abuse (and there is abuse sometimes, it exist, not all bosses are nice guys), that this abuse is against labor laws. Practical examples: a boss is guilty of sexual harassment, he doesn't like his employee anymore, he fires him. How is the fired employee supposed to show that he was unjustly fired if no motive is given? Hopefully, the Conseil d'Etat decision made it possible to contest the firing, but still very difficult, since the burden of proof has been inversed. While an employer can easily justify the decision to fire an employee if there is a legitimate reason for that (economic, for example), an employee will have a much more difficult time gathering proofs that he has been harassed, or that he has been fired because he didn't accept to work more hours, or be payed less, all kinds of things which belong to psychological intimidation. Now, the right-wing which support this law claimed it "is impossible to fire someone in France", and that the reason behind this impossibility is labor law. Labor laws are made to protect employees against abuse, not to impede employers to hire people. The real reason employers in France have a more difficult time to fire employees than, say in the UK, is because if they do, they have to pay fair sums of money to the fired employee (in a CDI indeterminate contract). So, if Villepin really was honest, what he would have done is not to create a "contract" which take out the motive, which allows the employee to defend himself against abuse (thus, it is sort of a "contract that doesn't protect the employee"; why do you need a contract then?). No, what he should have really done is change the labor law concerning the CDI, mainly by lowering the amount of money that must be given to a fired employee. The fact that people in favor of the CNE never tell you this show either that they are as ignorant as they claim the demonstrators are, or that they are really dishonest and only want to destroy any garantee against employers' abuse. I find it paradoxal to vote laws protecting people against sexual harassment and then to change the contracts and thus make these laws inoperative. The most funny in this story is that the CGPME, the main employers' union concerned by this contract for small enterprises, as itself called to its members to justify to the employees the reason why they are fired! Villepin could have be a bit more aware of how things work in France, that's a big political mistake of him. Lapaz 23:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Lapaz, can you give the source for the reversed burden of proof? I don't think I saw a clear source on that, even in French.
Apart from this, as I just did some checkings, there has actually been several court decisions against CNE employers, unnoticed because they precisely deal with abusive employers. This has also to be compared to the number of case for the "protected" CDI contract... Also, the Longjumeau case itself was about an abusive case (employer firing from "normal" contract and re-hiring on CNE contract before re-firing). Which means there is protection. Sarreau 00:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Clauses to include only basic facts (and not facts about opinions)?

Re: Guardian, flexibility comment, is there a better section for this as opposed to clauses? I would think that clauses should just be factual about what the law does and does not do, and not include opinions on whether it is good/bad/flexible/etc. MartinRe 22:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe after all you are right and it should be put in "in favor" of. It's not that important anyway, I just thought funny that you automatically considered "flexibility" was a good point; although it is true that this word tries to convey a positive feeling, but means exactly the same thing as "precarity" but from another point view. So, maybe you are right, it should be put in positive section. Lapaz 23:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


I don't mind to remove the "flexibility" part from this section, but this mention has to be somewhere, as it explains the reasons behind the CNE. And being a big change in French labour law, it might have to be explained in such a way. In the "background" section?
I understand the idea behind "only basic facts and no facts about opinion" for the clause section. However is it possible to just list the clauses without also having to explain them in an encyclopedia? In the current version, the "clause" section won't be of any use for readers, as there's no context to put it in...Sarreau 23:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Nobody talked about removing the sentence, Mr. Sarreau. "Background" is, IMO, a bit too vague. I think MartinRe was actually right in putting it in the "positive" section because the term "flexibility" is usually used in a positive sense, opposed to "precarity" which means the same thing, but in a negative sense. If you put it in background, expect to have contingent work or "precarity" opposed to it, thus balancing the term. If you put it in "in favour" section, expect to have "precarity" in "against" section. But I don't think this needs big debate. Lapaz 00:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I also don't see a debate. The government launched the CNE, with both the idea of creating jobs and creating flexibilty. As long as it is mentionned somewhere clearly, I am ok with it, say opponents reject the idea of flexibility or creating jobs somewhere is alo ok with me.Sarreau 00:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should have a general section about opinions/reaction to the law, so that we don't ourselves imply that flexibility is good or bad? (and it probably could be both, depending on whether you view it from an employee or employer) Maybe we could split the reaction into before and after for what happened before the law was passed (what it was intended to do, what people though it would do) and after (what the reaction was after it was passed)
As for context, the best context for me (a non-french person) would be a summary of how employment law works in France, what is a contract?, what other contracts are there? , and so on. Just saying this is more flexible contract/big change in labour law doesn't mean anything unless you know what the other contracts/labour law is currently like. See what I mean? MartinRe 09:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
It does sound nice for the general section with opinions/reaction, etc... but again, how to really split facts/opinion? Government figures are government figures, but see how Lapaz immediatly contested their impartiality, which is understandable? Anyway we can try and see how it goes. But I have to say I feel the article already looks better now.
I am glad you express the need of further explanations as a non-French. We already mentionned that before, but it will be tough to make it without big controversy. Maybe I should work on it with Lapaz, if we have equal voice maybe we might end up with something balanced!Sarreau 13:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand that MartinRe, as a non-French, needs to know more about the environment to improve the current article. But maybe we should first stabilize the current article?Sarreau 13:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
If you want a brief answer about the above, you might check here, which is intended for foreigners, and explains quite a lot, also comparing to US markets and habits. Can this text be used as a reference? for "fact about opinion", I have no doubts opponents will find it POV?Sarreau 13:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
To me the difference between "facts about facts" and "facts about opinions" is clear. Facts about facts would include information that no one would disagree on, e.g. date law was passed, what changes it made to the law, who the law applies to, and similar. Facts about opinions are items such as reasoning behind the law, impact these law changes had, whether it was good or bad, and so on.
I would agree with Lapaz that government figures aren't necessarily impartial, which is why I feel it's important to both include contrasting figures (sourced of course), if they are available, and always include the publisher in the web citations. All we are required to do is say "government said X, group A said Y, company B said Z", and allow people to make up their own mind.
Interesting link, and looks good for a backgound on what the contract types are. Looks like a good reference for both facts and opinions, as there is good background as well as comments from people there too. Regards, MartinRe 13:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Concerning government figures - and statistics in general - they must be used cautiously, not because they are false (statistic institutes usually don't lie; although numbers are sometimes falsified for various reasons - I'll take a totally different example: when the US Navy, the US Air Forces and the US Army goes to the Pentagon to have credits, bureaucrats usually forget a number or two, concerning for example the weakness of carrier ships, for negotiations purposes) but because they are used in the negotiations and in the political debate. Le Canard Enchaîné is one of the only newspaper that really questions numbers, and besides has sources that others newspapers don't have (inside sources from ministries, etc.; from people that you could call "whistleblowers", at least civil servants that disagree with the policies followed). This said, there aren't ten thousands institutes producing statistics in France, the INSEE and the INED are the main one. Concerning employment, the ANPE (which is the office where unemployed people have to check out for jobs; if they don't, they get excluded from the lists of "unemployed people" and are therefore not counted in the total of unemployed people) is usually a good source. Although, for the reasons explained just now, they use a certain type of category from the ... So, I put it for Sarreau, Le Monde made an article on Fabienne Brutus, employee at the ANPE, which explained that when in October the government's official numbers said they're was 10% unemployment, in fact there really was the double, 20% (this might be interesting to include in the article; or better, refer to Economics in France):

"A l'automne 2005 étaient ainsi déclarés en France 2 millions et demi de chômeurs, et l'on se félicitait d'être passé sous la barre psychologique des 10 % de la population active. Or, toutes catégories confondues, ils étaient un peu plus de 4 millions inscrits à l'ANPE à la même époque : soit 15 % de la population active. S'y ajoutent les jeunes non indemnisés, les vieux dispensés de recherche d'emploi, les RMistes non inscrits ou encore ceux qui, par lassitude, abandonnent le pointage : un bon million de personnes en plus, selon Fabienne Brutus. Total estimé : 5 millions de chômeurs en France. 19 % de la population active..."

Another interesting thing in the same article is the following sentence, where she shows that they are 23 000 ANPE agents who have to work for 4 million unemployed people (i.e. a good way to create jobs in France would be to help the ANPE work better, paying more employees and having the ANPE pay formation to the unemployed people, so they can find new different jobs):

"Je m'étais fait une idée des dysfonctionnements de l'ANPE, mais j'étais loin d'imaginer l'ampleur des dégâts, raconte-t-elle. En arrivant, je me suis dit : je vais changer les choses, proposer des formations. Mais il n'y a rien de proposable. Sauf pour les métiers "en tension" (pour lesquels les offres sont nombreuses), l'Assedic ne paye pas de formation. On ne peut pas faire notre métier correctement. Nous sommes 23 000 agents pour accompagner 4 millions de chômeurs."

The original article is "Fabienne Brutus, la pasionaria de l'ANPE", Le Monde, April 3, 2006. Retrieved on May 6, 2006. . This said, the figures used in the article (the ACOSS numbers) are unreliable, because the ACOSS is probably not the best place to look for concerning such figures. Their confusion, pointed out in the Canard Enchainé article, had them reduce their first "estimation" (and not "registration", as Villepin had it understood) by 20%. That's quite a big mistake for an official institute, isn't it? And may estimations be transformed in "we know for sure that so many jobs (XXX) have been created"? Of course, these types of remarks are valid for any government, statistics are used for war, let's not forget it. The debate on demographics and on the inclusion of "immigrants" (what is a immigrant?) is even worse! Lapaz 15:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] references for the Burden of proof

Lapaz, you wrote "I put for Sarreau", sorry but what do you mean? Did I mention anything about your above comments on Anpe and all?Sarreau 19:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing, it was just that I assume you speak French since you gave me sources from Les Echos, and the others apparently don't. That's all! Concerning the burden of proof, it is the Conseil d'Etat decision concerning the CNE which has explained this. You may refer to fr:Wikipedia#Motifs de licenciements. Before the Conseil d'Etat's decision, the law stated that "no motive" had to be given (thus it was impossible to contest an arbitrary "firing"); but the Conseil d'Etat judged that if the sacked employee want to the labor courts, than the employer had to give a motive. However, the Conseil d'Etat's decision reversed the burden of proof. Lapaz 19:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
By the way, The Enterprise source is broken. I delete it, keeping the sentence. Lapaz 19:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Actually I kept the reference, just took out the broken link, but L'Enterprise directs to a ship, that's probably not the good thing. Could you make a stub to indicate what sort of newspaper that it? Lapaz 19:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
a ship? sorry I admit I am quite bad at editing properly the references in the edits, the link is this, I'll try to correct.
anyway, your own link above for burden of proof points to nowhere, is it a typing error? I also checked on the French version of Wikipedia (which I was surprised to find much more balanced than ours here), there's no clear mention of it either, and could not see any source nor reference for it.
Also, your link on "annuaire-secu" in the article only mentions the idea without explaining anything about it, can you provide with clearer references?Sarreau 00:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi! Enterprise link used to redirect to here: French frigate L'Entreprise! that sometimes happen, but a new article must be created (although I don't agree with the unilateral policy of one User here that deletes red links on sight, when they are only one or two, it's good, that's how I joined Wikipedia, filling up red links... It is sometimes better to have a red link than a very short stub). Yes, I missed something, but you've seen it if you've gone there: fr:Contrat nouvelle embauche#Motifs de licenciements. However, it hasn't got any source either, I suppose if you leave a message the guy who wrote it will tell you where he found it. Here you can find some more links apart of the Annuaire-Sécu: [4], although I don't know what you want more to explain (apart if you want to read the Conseil d'Etat's decision, not a bad idea, but I'm not really into it right now!:=) Lapaz 11:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
well, first, your proposal is for CPE, not the CNE. Let's consider it's the same... This particular issue is stated as factual, but I don't find any official or original source proving that statement is correct!!!???Sarreau 11:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I provided additional sources for the burden of the proof. I suggest you read the last one, by the sociological teacher (while it's heavily biased against the CNE, you might even find arguments for it inside). The matter is quite simple & i'll explain it quickly in the article. There's not much more to say about this inversion of the burden of the proof, at least not that I think of. Lapaz 11:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I read through your links. Again, it's about CPE, not CNE, let's consider it is the same. BOTH links are personal opinions, so more like "fact about opinion" thing. The first, as you say, is biased, and is the open expression of a teacher. Anyway I could not find "proof" here of the reversed burden of proof. It is also not clearly mentionned in the second link, which is an interview, again about CPE and not CNE, of student union leader that also clearly is an opponent! Boths link don't refer to the burden of proof, and in best case both are "fact about opinion", not factual about the "reversed burden of proof". You developped a lot around this statement, I think it is important to prove it as a fact, or indicate that all of it is at most an opinion!Sarreau 11:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
And, just want to suggest, please stop taking it bad because the article is "unbalanced". If you feel this is the case, than find good arguments and put them on. I am not a fanatic, and I will not erase sourced things you put, if you don't caricature the stuff. The only thing I've done on this article is taking arguments from the fr:Contrat nouvelle embauche, that's it. They're not "my" personal arguments, they are the reason why the 2006 labor protests in France happenned. You may think "French people" or "French students" are dumb, or want to have fun, or whatever, the fact remains that apart of silly French young people, ALL of the left-wing AND the UDF party opposed itself to the CPE. Contrary to what you may think, I am not opposed to any change, not even about contracts. But doing it that way is not a solution, and is ignoring lot of stuff relating to French "way of life" (let's put it like that). One example: Paris is one of the most difficult cities in the world to find a flat (I've seen you just came back here, I suppose you could experiment that a bit), and the CNE makes it very hard for young people from the suburbs to find a flat, and they already have loads of other stuff to be worry about. They are many ways to create jobs, it is NOT just a matter of "flexibility vs immobilism". I am open enough to understand arguments from liberals, I just disagree with neoliberal policies, does that makes me a fanatic? If it does, half of France is fanatic. Please assume good faith, Regards Lapaz 11:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I won't go into this kind of arguments, and I don't think it serves you here. The above just indicates how strong your opinion is about it. Good for you, not good for npov!
Lapaz, my problem is that your efforts mostly reproduce the fears and complains expressed by opponents, you would have to admit that, and by doing this you give it undue weight that threatens the neutrality of the article.Sarreau 12:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Now can we go back to this point about "reversed ..."? I really don't know about it myself, and the more I read mentions of it, the more it looks like a fact about opinion to me! I believe now it has to be mentionned as such, and all the comments that are developped after this statement become irrelevant development of the article! Third opinion please?Sarreau 12:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
You're funny Sarreau, you shout at me because I didn't respect "chronology" (which is common here) but you do the same. Anyway, of course it concerns the CPE, but didn't you know that the Conseil d'Etat's decision applied itself FIRST to the CNE and then to the CPE? If most people are talking about the effects on the CPE, that's because of the demonstrations!!! I advise you do a little research before accusing me implicitly of distorting the truth, to say it mildly. Again, if you think I'm an extremist, then do a little research on your own, ask what's the "mainstream opinion" on French Wikipedia, and that kind of things, instead of assuming that I'm lying, although I am saying what everybody has said. The problem of taking this too late, is that the newspapers' articles are not anymore freely available, so if you are really interested in the matter, please go in a library, spend your afternoon there, and look it up! I've already provided enough (excuse-me if I sound annoyed, I am tired and didn't sleep at all). Cheers anyway! Lapaz 12:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
your first remark: I use the "::::" to show chronology. We are both right now in front of our computer at the same moment trying to edit, so I will make a break to let you right.

Can we avoid the direct "you are funny" and all?

I don't accuse you, I ask you for references and sources, as I don't see any. That's wikipedia. The burden of proof is yours here... When I started the article and talked about "rigid labour law", you deleted~, though I provided the source. Now it's back as a "fact about opinion". Here is the same, except I did not delete. I think we really need third opinion hereSarreau 12:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] "reversed burden of proof": fact or opinion

ok following the above issue, I quote WP:RS: "Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?": I invite anybody claiming the sources Lapaz gave has no "conflict of interest" or "strong views" to prove it to me: a teacher who expresses he is against the CNE, and a student union leader whose entire interview explains why he is against the CPE and CNE!!

No matter how many lines Lapaz writes about it, the problem is still the same: so far, it is an opinion, not a fact. I have no problem to mention it, but then clearly indicate it is an opinion, not a fact. The same way, Lapaz, I'll have no problem to take it as a fact when mentionned in a non-biased source, or in a legal explanation of the CNE. We don't have this so far.

Also, I don't see the point of adding all those lines and overloaded paragraph about it when you just have to say: "In all cases, if a fired employee sues his employer, the employer has to provide a justification. The difference is, in a normal long term contract, the employer has to prove the justification is right, as opposed to a CNE where the fired employee has to prove the justification was wrong."

I think it is giving the same information, explained clearly, and that's only three lines, as opposed to all the heavy paragraphs in the "clauses" and repeated in the "court arbitrage" section. I propose to remove those part and replace it with this, which I shall do ONLY if third parties come and discuss it HERE. If nobody even reads it, then nevermind. THIRD PARTY OPINION NEEDED!Sarreau 15:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Replace it by that. I made it larger this morning because you seemed to ask for explanation. However, I think the 1973 date should be kept, along with at least the mention of VGE (this 1973 law came exactly a year - or maybe less - after Jacques Chaban-Delmas's quit from power, and Chaban-Delmas had this "new society" project, as an answer to May 68 -- a bit like today, the CNE is an "answer" to the riots...) Since you rightly insist that context should be provided, I think it's not a bad idea giving this clue. Else, I agree that there is no need to repeat five times the same thing. Lapaz 17:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thank you Lapaz. However I still have the same problem: fact or fact about opinion? I don't need explanation, but an original source. You mentionned the Conseil d'Etat decision, but where is this "reversed burden of proof" mentionned, sorry I can't see any mention of it!
the shorter phrasing I proposed, and I am glad you are ok with it, still has to be validated as factual or "opinion"! If it is an opinion, I will remove it from the "clause" section and paste it in the Opposition or Court section, if it is clearly a fact about the CNE, then it should be in the "clause" section, so there is a difference.Sarreau 11:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
also, though it is definitely interesting, I don't think the whole explanation with Chaban, Messmer and VGE, and 1973 belongs here in this article, and particularly in this section. Explaining the context of the "reversed burden of proof" is enough for both section and article...Sarreau 00:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


I have made some research and looked for the Conseil d'Etat decision, but it remains unclear FOR THE CNE!! In the meantime I want to correct a possible misunderstanding: in normal cases, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff (fired employee). The reversed burden of proof therefore lies with the defendent (employer), so the reversed burden of proof is a good thing for the employee. The labour law has stated under which allegation (pregnancy, etc.) the burden of proof will be reversed.Sarreau 00:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This being said, are we ok the question is: did the Conseil d'Etat grant the same reversion under same circumstances (meaning pregnancy, disease, etc., but NOT, say, poor performances) for the CNE, or did it not? If it did, it's factual... Is there an answer and a source to check it? Lapaz?Sarreau 00:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "courts usually favour employees" opinion

In my first versions of this article, I repeated an opinion stated in newspapers, the fact that in case fired employee sues his employer, the court usually will try to favour employees.

It is plainly related to the above subject: the idea that anyway, court will try to discourage firing. I don't think I will see it written anywhere in the law, so I won't claim it is a fact (but my opinion is that it might be a fact). I claim as an opinion. Lapaz deleted it earlier, but after all the discussion including his complains that I ask for a source, it looks to me I can write it in the article, clearly as an opinion, with those sources here and here.Sarreau 15:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Reading quickly (I didn't check the sources), I see no problem with what you've written. You're starting to get the hand of it: instead of complaining about me, writing stuff & sourcing it, without deleting everything! Furthermore, I notice that you put the "courts usually favor employees" between scare quotes, which you hadn't done the first time... Maybe one thing that could be improved is the sentence: after that "firing becomes too costly and expensive". I don't think at all it should be removed (it's a main argument), I think it would gain in being developed & maybe sourced (probation periods go to six months maximum according to European law, if I don't make any mistake). Concerning your above comment about the need to find a "factual" source for the "burden of the proof", again, this is old news, it is difficult now to find news article. I am not a jurist & I should actually stop editing on Wikipedia & do some real work, so I don't really have time to read 30 pages of court decision. However, it is quite strange that you put the alternative between "factual information" and "opinion information": this is a fact, so either it's right, or its false. The problem is not its source, but if it exist or not. It is quite normal that supporters of the law don't point out that not having any motive, until the October 2004 court decision, stopped any employee from complaining in case of arbitrary firing. It is also quite normal that they don't speak about the reversion of the burden of the proof; that's fair game. But although the sources I've provided you do come from opponents of the law, I've provided you various sources, so that's like cross-checking. I add that I haven't been the first to introduce this (actually I had no idea of this expression "burden of the proof" before), I read it here & then I saw it on the French Wiki (that's not an argument, but it's just to let you know). In any case, I feel like I've sourced it enough, so unless you show me something which demonstrates that it's false, I think it's all right that we keep it. But again, either it's false, or it's true, it's not a question of "fact vs opinion". I'm repeating, but I remind you that I provided you various sources, one from the Left Radical Party, far from being a "radical party". Lapaz 00:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


I got what you mean the first time. To summarize: sources are from opponents, all commenting on the CPE, not the CNE. Though both are compared, and both fiercely rejected by unions and opponents, those are two different contracts.
I did not find the decision from Conseil d'Etat on CNE, but on CPE. The source however clearly say that "The conseil d'Etat did not rule so precisely about the CNE"...
nothing is clear, but my understanding is that there is actually no clear decision on this by the Conseil d'Etat, only to some limited extent (pregnancy, disease, race...) the burden of proof is reversed (which is in favor of the employee), meaning that in theory for all other cases (which would be???), the burden of proof is on employee side.
it also looks to me that the current government does not want to go further: avoid the costly courts is, at the end of the day, the huge difference that this CNE brings. Under all contracts you can be fired, but in all other cases, employers has to bear all the court costs AND, when ruled in favor of employees, have to pay the compensations: this is what allegedly scares the companies.
I know you have a much stronger editing experience than I have and I will respect it, and I also understand your point and I am not really eager to continue all the discussion on it, but given the doubts on this I think there it has to be mitigated in the version. I will do so.Sarreau 09:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


I'd like to add that the alternative betw fact and opinion that "surprises" you is wikipedia guidelines WP:RS, and so is the interested position of sources quoted... check particularly WP:RS#Some definitions : fact vs opinion.
so far, all your sources and all your quotes clearly refer to the "a certain person or group holds a certain opinion" as a fact about opinion. So, again, it should be presented as such.Sarreau 09:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, I went through hundreds of lines from the Senate, the Assemblee Nationale (French parliament), and the Conseil d'Etat reports: nothing legally clear about that issue, and anyway everything about CPE.Sarreau 09:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


Just reorganized the burden of proof thing:

  • clarified the idea (sometimes wrongly expressed: the reversal of burden of proof is what protects the employee, not the opposite). In the "Le Monde" interview of the student's union leader about the CPE, he mixes up the idea saying the reversal is very bad: he means the reversal of normal law (i.e. the reversal of the reversal...). Hope I won't have to dig out the discussion of Conseil d'Etat, Senate and Assemblee Nationale - all on the CPE, not CNE: it's all in French, and quite hard to follow, but it's there.
  • sources previously given are expressions of opponents. It is not clear what is allegations and what is not. Anyway they all "complain" about the issue, so I left the sources in the clause section (i/o moving to opposition section), but indicated the sources are voices of opposition.
  • clearly indicated also that sources are referring to the First Employment Contract, not the CNE.

Though I find the historical section is unnecesary I did not delete it. I did delete mentions of the CDD, which is yet another problem not related to the issue. Hope this ends the discussions?Sarreau 10:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time right now to edit, so I put a "totally disputed" tag: I contest the factual accuracy of the changes you've made concerning this burden of proof reversal, that you kindly explained just above. I had a look at your "fact vs. opinion" policy, and, of course, it does not contradict what I say: either the burden of proof is reversed, and it's true, or it's not reversed or it's false. You point out to a third possible solution, that in some specific cases it is reversed & in others no. I think this is the point to search for if we want factual accuracy. We can't state that "some people believe the burden of proof is reversed, while others believe it is not". Beware of the tendency of some Wikipedians to mix "NPOV" with "balancing of political opinions": facts are facts, encore une fois, l'objectivité ("scientifique", par définition), ce n'est pas la doxa": ou c'est vrai, ou c'est faux. Since I do not have time right now to look for definitive sources, I would agree if you wrote something like: "The burden of proof is reversed", with the source that I've given you, and you clearly precise in the source that Julliard is leader of a student trade union and the Left Radical Party was opposed it. In my opinion, you show a bit too much scepticism (in a general sense, I like sceptic people!) when you question the Parti Radical de Gauche: it isn't like if I had gave you a Arlette Laguiller source!!! :) (— I really don't like her to make it clear :) Since it seems that you did take the efforts of looking National Assembly sources & other official sources, and that you've learnt things (specifically about that in some cases the burden of proof is reversed, etc.), it would be kind of you, if you can, to point out to me where & on which page you saw it. Apart from this article, I'd be personnaly interested in it (if you do continue editing after all here, you will see that one of the most important things in Wikipedia, in my eyes, is what other users bring your attention on... that forces us to debate, it's good!) Regards, Lapaz 15:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


?? I am quite surprised, as I really did not change much and kept your own things though I really disagree with some of it...! Too bad, I thought you would have agreed with it, because basically I only reorganized a bit and indicated the fact that, again, your sources are:
1- talking about CPE, not CNE. I think you agree with that?
2- all personal expressions from opponents... I guess you can't disagree here also! I quoted the wikipedia mention about this issue earlier.
I'll go and try to find back sources; basically it was based on google search, something like "inversion de la charge de la preuve"+"contrat nouvelle embauche"+"conseil d'Etat", nothing more. It was also mostly about CPE, however.
Also, I quote from your own source: "En revanche, ils précisent qu'il appartiendra à l'employeur, "en cas de recours", d'indiquer les motifs de cette rupture afin de permettre au juge de vérifier qu'ils sont licites et de sanctionner un éventuel abus de droit. Cela constitue une inversion de la charge de la preuve. Le patron qui licencie sans motif un CPE a donc toutes les chances d'avoir à s'expliquer devant les prud'hommes. Le Conseil d'Etat avait dit la même chose à propos du CNE, mais pas de manière aussi claire." "The Conseil d'Etat said the same regarding the CNE, but not as clear". Isn't exactly what I said, both about the reversal for CPE, AND the fact things were not made clear for the CNE???Sarreau 22:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


(i thought i already copy/pasted those links?)

Just check it out. MPs discussions, mostly about CPE, but mixing both CNE and CPE. It clearly explains what the reversal of burden of proof is about, but does not clearly say what the situation is for CNE.Sarreau 00:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

As I just browsed in google, I found this interesting link. It is a CPE/CNE supporter blog, then I won't use it here, but if you care to read...Sarreau 00:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "burden of proof": the original legal text applying:

Here is finally the legal text from the Conseil d'Etat about the CNE!, given it was available on internet I have to apologize for finding it only now, this should bring this issue to an end. I included a link to another legal text it refers to... It should also be understood that this "conseil d'Etat" issue is part of the legal efforts from the Unions (see text) to cancel the CNE; the Conseil d'Etat rejects this demand. This text here shows what has been decided about the burden of proof:
THIS is the legal text:
"En ce qui concerne la méconnaissance de la directive 97/80/CE du Conseil du 15 décembre 1997 relative à la charge de la preuve dans les cas de discrimination fondée sur le sexe et de la directive 2000/78/CE du Conseil du 27 novembre 2000 (note from Sarreau: check here) portant création d'un cadre général en faveur de l'égalité de traitement en matière d'emploi et de travail :
Considérant qu'en vertu de ces deux directives, lorsqu'une personne s'estimant lésée par le non-respect à son égard du principe de l'égalité de traitement établit devant une juridiction des faits permettant de présumer l'existence d'une discrimination directe ou indirecte, il incombe à la partie défenderesse de prouver qu'il n'y pas eu violation du principe de l'égalité de traitement ; que la transposition de ces dispositions est assurée par l'article L. 122-45 du code du travail qui n'est pas au nombre des dispositions dont l'ordonnance du 2 août 2005 a exclu l'application au "contrat nouvelles embauches" ; que, par suite, le moyen tiré de ce que l'ordonnance attaquée aurait été prise en méconnaissance des objectifs de ces deux directives ne peut qu'être écarté".

Now it means that when the plaintiff/employee starts the procedure, as soon as he brings forward an allegation of discrimination, the burden of proof is reversed to the defendant/employer side.
Discrimination that the text refers to are (see my link above):"discrimination fondée sur la religion ou les convictions, l'handicap, l'âge ou l'orientation sexuelle", meaning discrimination based on religion, political opinion, physical disability, age, sexual orientation.

This is what I wrote when I edited! So now it's factual, and it's sourced.Sarreau 14:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. It does seem to mean that. I'd be very careful, however, of any definitive interpretation. As I told you before, I am not a lawyer nor a jurist & although it is very nice to have found the original Conseil d'Etat decision, such decisions are complicated & must be seen as what they are: primary sources that must be reenforced by secondary sources if to be understood at all. As you know, it is totally possible that another paragraph or a sidenote 20 pages later says the reverse (I'm not saying that to dislegitimate your find, but just to warn against definitive interpretations concerning juridical texts. I had put the "factual accuracy" disputed for reasons explained above, it doesn't matter much). Lapaz 14:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


well, you brought this Conseil d'Etat thing from the French wikipedia. Now that you have the original version of what the Conseil d'Etat said, you are trying to say that what it says might not be exactly what it says?? I mean, I know what you mean, legal phrasing is not always clear, but this legal text, therefore factual. You are free to indicate opinions about it, as long as you indicate it is an opponent's opinion.
Sarreau 16:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French language icons

The (French) have been put at the end of the links. This is the first time I see it on Wikipedia, and in this case, I don't really see the use of it (the icon is there to show that it's in French so that someone who doesn't speak the language doesn't bother reading it; if it's at the end of the sentence, this meant he already read the sentence and already knows that he doesn't understand it). It's a detail, of course, but it goes against the way other Wikipedia articles are done. Lapaz 19:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Per Template:Languageicon it is preferable that language icons are placed *after* the link. I take your point, though... you could start a discussion of this at Template talk:Languageicon if you wanted. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 18:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)